W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:11:47 +0000
To: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
CC: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F9981AFB970564408FEB7DFCF62D440843BA543F@PRN-MBX01-4.TheFacebook.com>
On 2/1/13 1:03 PM, "Suresh Chitturi" <schitturi@rim.com> wrote:

>>From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie@fb.com]
>>Subject: Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012
>>On 1/31/13 8:15 AM, "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org> wrote:
>>>Thank you very much Tobie, please flip away and I'll push my button.
>>There you go:
>Notice that there is a mismatch between the name of the report of the
>title of the document.
>Naming the title to "Specification" can be misleading, and a better name
>would be "Final Community Group Report".

That's a fair point, should be brought up at the CG process level, so good
call copying Ian on this.

>There were some discussions on this particular topic during the TPAC and
>post TPAC, and I believe the conclusion from that is the same i.e. not to
>use the term specification for CG deliverables.
>Ian, can probably shed some light?:)

The CG process talks about specifications all over the place, including in
the Final Specification Agreement (FSA)[1]. Afaik, the terminology
difference between rec track and non rec track specifications has been on
the use of the term "standard" which is restricted to rec track work.

Anyway, it don't have any objection renaming the spec if we do an errata
release down the line.



[1]: http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/fsa-deed/
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC